Discussion thread for Stripe and Genuineoriginal's 1 on 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The strongest argument for Dr. Brown's theory is what Stripe is covering now which is that the Canopy Theory doesn't hold water.

The instant I read Dr. Brown's theory it clicked in my head and sounded so much more logical and believable. The entire canopy theory always sounded so contrived and unbelievable. Dr. Brown's theory is realistic, believable and understandable.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm not sure anyone holds to the canopy theory any longer, do they? :chuckle:
 

Sherman

I eat Trolls, Spammers, and Loons
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I have known about the hydroplate theory for a while. I have Walt Brown's book. It makes more sense then the cloud canopy model.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm not so sure there wasn't a canopy also. It does solve a few problems of the antediluvian world. And there may have been enough energy to send the fountains of the deep high enough to break it.

Just like the crust, the canopy would have been fragile, with one crack bringing the whole thing down.

Alternatively, the canopy might have gone first because a meteor is what initiated the crack in the crust of the earth. But I don't think it would have mattered much.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
The best thing about the canopy theory is that it explained the greenhouse temperatures, high oxegen content, protection from harmful cosmic radiation, and the ice age. It wasn't quite able to explain how a massive bubble of water surrounding the atmosphhere managed to stay intact before the flood.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Canopy theory is a distraction. There is no need to look for a source of water other than the 'fountains'.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Canopy theory is a distraction. There is no need to look for a source of water other than the 'fountains'.
I don't think it could have been a significant source of water for the flood. It does explain a few pre-flood features, though.
 

Letsargue

New member
I know, right. I mean, how do satellites stay in orbit above the Earth?




For that much water to be as cloud cover, the cloud would have to be hundreds of miles thick, if not a thousand or two miles thick. There would have been storms that man has never experienced to this day, and there could not have been ANY light under the cloud. - That would demand a perpetual darkness during all the time before the flood. – NEVER HAPPENED THAT WAY GENIUSES!!!

Paul – 052012
 

Letsargue

New member
The strongest argument for Dr. Brown's theory is what Stripe is covering now which is that the Canopy Theory doesn't hold water.

The instant I read Dr. Brown's theory it clicked in my head and sounded so much more logical and believable. The entire canopy theory always sounded so contrived and unbelievable. Dr. Brown's theory is realistic, believable and understandable.



BUT that’s what God said, - “The doors of Heaven WERE OPENED, and dumped the water on the dry ground and made it wet", or it may not have said it quite like that.

Paul – 052012
 

Letsargue

New member
I'm not so sure there wasn't a canopy also. It does solve a few problems of the antediluvian world. And there may have been enough energy to send the fountains of the deep high enough to break it.

Just like the crust, the canopy would have been fragile, with one crack bringing the whole thing down.

Alternatively, the canopy might have gone first because a meteor is what initiated the crack in the crust of the earth. But I don't think it would have mattered much.



You’re just guessing and guessing and guessing, trying to solve it YOUR OWN WAY!! – What about the “WAY” of God?? – Didn’t you forget God, or what He said?

Paul – 052012
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top